The Abbott government appears determined to destroy the emerging renewable energy sector to protect Australia's fossil fuel industry if its plans to lower the clean energy target are any guide, wind farm developers said.

The comments follow the announcement on Wednesday by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane that the government would seek to cut the 2020 Renewable Energy Target for large-scale developers by about one-third.

The revised goal of 26,000 gigawatt-hours annually by decade's end is down from the previously bipartisan goal of 41,000 gw-h. Taking into account plants already built, the lower target would cleave the remaining capacity needed by 2020 by about 70 per cent, said Pacific Hydro general manager Lane Crockett.

"It's ridiculous to think you'd cut the RET by about 70 per cent and the industry not be decimated by that radical change," Mr Crockett said.

Related Content

"What reason can there be [for this cut] other than to protect the coal industry," he said.

Adrian Maddocks, a senior development manager at CWP Renewables, said Prime Minister Tony Abbott had made it clear which industry he supported with his "coal is good for humanity" comments made last week.

Advertisement

"It seems this government is intent on destroying any sort of renewable or green-based industry and it's solely focussed on mineral extraction and fossil fuels," Mr Maddocks said.

The clean energy industry has said that as much as $14.5 billion of new investment – most of it in rural areas – was at risk if the Renewable Energy Target was lowered.

Small-scale spared

Mr Macfarlane on Wednesday revealed the government's long-awaited response to its handpicked Warburton review panel that had examined the performance of the target and recommend sharply curtailing the scheme.

After a couple of months of deliberation, the government adopted the main thrust of the report – that the electricity industry did not need more new capacity while demand growth remained weak.

It appears, however, to have bowed to a public campaign by the solar panel industry to leave the small-scale element of the scheme unchanged. Scrapping this component would have raised the cost of panels for homeowners by about 40 per cent.

The Solar Council welcomed the reprieve for small-scale renewable suppliers as "a very positive development", claiming credit in part for its "Save Solar Campaign" that had targetted marginal electorates.

"The debate should not be about how much we should cut support for solar and the Renewable Energy Target," the Council said. "The debate must be about how much we expand our use of solar and achieve 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Australians want more solar, not less."

Investor fears

Large-scale developers, though, said the government's stance would mean few if any new projects went ahead. The proposed change – midway through the program – would scare off investors for years to come.

Slashing the target for large plants as Mr Macfarlane proposed "would be terminal for the renewables industry and a terrible result for the broader community who will suffer from more pollution, less investment and jobs in regional areas, and higher electricity prices," said Jonathan Upson, manager for government affairs at Infigen Energy, a wind farm developer.

Mr Maddocks singled out CWP's Sapphire Wind Farm proposed for a site west of Glen Innes in northern NSW that would almost certainly not proceed if the government's revised target got through the Senate.

As currently planned, the 159 turbines with a capacity of 318 megawatts would generate hundreds of construction jobs and save about 819,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

The project is part of some $3.5 billion the company had planned for NSW.

Lowering the target would mean "one or two projects going ahead, whereas there would be dozens" across Australia if the goal was left unchanged, Mr Maddocks said.

PacificHydro's Mr Crockett said his company had plans to triple its current $500 million investment in renewable energy in Australia by 2020 – but only if the existing target remained unchanged.

Under immediate threat from the lower target is PacificHydro's 41-turbine windfarm at Crowlands, north east of the Victorian town of Ararat. "It's probably very unlikely that it would go ahead," Mr Crockett said.

Andrew Bray, national coordinator of the Australian Wind Alliance, said the government had "learnt nothing" from the Warburton review, noting its own commissioned research pointed to electricity prices being lower over the longer term with the target left as it is.

Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, took a more optimistic view, describing the government's position as "a good starting point and a sensible basis for negotiation".

"The government and the opposition need to come to a bipartisan position on the RET – this would be positive for stability, confidence and investment," he said.

Emissions, profits bulge

Environmental groups said the government's proposals if implemented would increase the country's dependence on aging, high-carbon intensive coal-fired power stations and send renewable energy investment offshore.

Modelling by The Climate Institute, the Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF-Australia found a slashed RET would bolster profits for coal-fired generators by $8 billion over the 2015-2030 period and $2 billion for gas-fired plants.

Corporate winners would include AGL, which would snag $2.5 billion, EnergyAustralia $2 billion, while Origin Energy would glean $1.5 billion in extra profit over that period, the groups said.

Carbon emissions would also rise by 150 million tonnes by 2030, equal to adding 4 million more cars to the nation's roads, they said.